Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A?

The posts of several in this thread (mainly Balbus) are like an afternnon soap opera: one can watch two consecutive episodes, then skip the next 25 and never miss a thing.

Seriously, Balbus, the thread questions, "Should guns be outlawed in the U.S.A?" Why not just stick to the topic? If you want to ask other questions or discuss the social ills of life in Kazakhstan, start another thread. We have all seen your compiled reasons of "why Americans think they need guns" (yet you still claim lack of understanding about that) and your assertion that, "According to the FBI, virtually all guns in the hands of criminals...". I, for one, don't give a fat rat. Guns are not the problem -- criminals are the problem.

I want to own guns because it is my right to own them without the "infringement" of control or regulation and because here in the U.S. we have murderous, drug-crazed thugs who invade private homes, commit car-jackings, rapes, robberies, and any number of other crimes. They commit these acts by choice -- not for lack of means to otherwise exist within society. I will defend my home, my property and my family from all threats and by whatever means necessary. My only (o-n-l-y) fear is that by doing so, there could be a mess in the yard or a stain on the carpet.

If there is any confusion about what I've said or about what I mean, please just re-read the post -- as many times as is necessary. Yes, I've already read every post in this thread -- yeah, every stinking one! And, no, I will not debate the definition of any particular word I have used.

There, I've had my say. Bash away -- using as many separate posts as possible, of course.

Also, please feel free to us as many sarcastic, one-line remarks as deemed necessary -- regardless of their lack of substance.


atriot:

 

Indie

And if those that have been prohibited from possessing a gun to previous conviction live in a country that has very easy access to firearms they could easily get a gun. So it would seem prudent to try and limit the ways in which criminals obtain guns.

All criminals and forever? That really would be the repressive approach.

It isn’t exactly the rational approach, it is like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted - the person is a criminal and has got hold of a gun – a more sensible approach would be to try and prevent a person turning to crime and as much as possible limit the availability of guns to criminals.

 

Roo

If you had some actually counter arguments you wouldn’t be bitching you’d be debating in an honest and open way.

I wouldn’t be if they read them. I mean look at your last posts aimed at me (my replies 536 and 538) you made up a quote of something I’d never said and then you made up an arguments that I had never given and then you accused me of ‘crimes’ on the evidence you had made up.

LOL – I’m forced to repeat myself because people don’t read what I say, but like you make it up instead.

And of course I use what people say (because I read their posts) although I don’t know what you mean by ‘back doors’? I only have what people say, we are not mind readers so all we have to communicate with is our words, it is not a perfect method but it is all we have. I try to use what people say (and not just make it up) and try and work out its meaning. So I ask – ‘you seem to be saying’ it is a question ‘is this what you mean’ – people have every opportunity to explain their views in return.

Well, as with you I’m sorry to say they often haven’t.

Then explain why you think it is ‘bullshit’ and I’ll try and put it in a way in which you can understand my meaning (that’s called debate) too often people like you just dismiss it without actually reading it or thinking about it and then claim I’ve said things I haven’t.

Then you would think by now that you knew what they said – but sadly you seem not to.

Problem is that my experience here has been that if I do short, people complain that I haven’t explained things and so I do explain and they complain is too long. I’ve tried to do both, whereby I do a long post hoping people will read that and then know my fuller meaning if I do a short post and just reference it but people like you – don’t read either properly and I find myself having to give long explanations again.

Sorry about the spelling mistake here which somewhat undermines your scorn, but again, if you think it is drivel then explain what you think is wrong and I’ll do my best to explain - the same goes if you think it incoherent.

Things that have been presented on Fox News have turned up on these forums from time to time and if I think them dishonest or wrong I’ve presented a rational argument to explain why I think them wrong, I don’t just shout that they are wrong and dishonest.

If you think my views are wrong or dishonest present a rational argument to explain why you think them wrong, don’t just shout that you think they’re wrong.

I’ve already apologized for the bbcode but that’s not me, and I don’t know why you are getting it and why you are reading things with the bbcode viewable.

What ‘new’ argument are you talking about and why are my arguments ‘dishonest’. As I’ve said if you think my views are dishonest present a rational argument explaining why you think them wrong, don’t just shout that you think they’re dishonest.

 

Roo (and others)

Rather than ranting against me because I will not just accept what you are saying without question - why not ask yourself why is it that your arguments don’t seem to stand up well to criticism?

 

Phantom


As I say there just has to be a pro-gunners handbook

It is just uncanny how the same arguments come up time after time after time….

And of course it forces me to have to repeat myself, sorry Roo.

You seem to be presenting one unverified ‘fact’ and the rest is opinion.

Where do you get this from, please give the source?

In countries with more stringent gun control measures such as the UK ‘homemade’ guns are not a big problem?

But you are only thinking about laws; this is an example of the repressive approach.

Gun theory

My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

This is because that attitude colours the way they think about and view the world from personal interaction to how they see other countries.

They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of criminal or political suppression.

This attitude can lead to a near paranoid outlook were everything and everyone is seen as a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas.

Within the framework of such a worldview guns seem attractive as a means of ‘equalising’ the individual against what they perceive as threats, it makes them feel that they are also ‘powerful’ and intimidating and that they too, if needs be, can deal with, in other words suppress the threatening.

The problem is that such attitudes can build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what they see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible.

I live in London it has a population of around 7.5 million and it only had 175 homicides between Apr-2005 to Apr-2006. In fact in 2009 there were only 651 murders in the whole of England and Wales with a population of around 55 million.

But let us take an American city - Philadelphia – it I believe has a population of around 6.1 million yet it had 406 homicides in that same year. So two Philadelphia’s with only 12.2 million people would create 812 murders, more than what is produced by 55 million Brits.

But if you take out gun related homicides from the US crime figures they are not that much different from those of many European countries that have gun restrictions (although it is incredible difficult to compare any crime statistics other than homicide).

So the question is are Americans more murderous or is it just that Americans have easier access to much more lethal weapons?

Please cite this I can find no such quote.

I’m not against the law abiding and responsible having a gun. But I’d ask why they desire a gun, why are they so frightened of the society they live in that they feel they need a gun to protect themselves from it?

Thank you, someone else to back up my theories.

Also it is the same pro-gun scaremongering as a means of selling guns.

It is also part of the ‘there is no alternative argument’ (and since there isn’t an alternative the only way to protect yourself from that pistol totting crack addicted gangbanger that at any moment could break through your door and rape your wife and child before putting a bullet in your head is to get yourself a gun, no get two or maybe three…..)

 

Phantom

Please to stop Roo having a heart attack from all that high blood pressure could you just try and read through the posts in the thread?

I mean a lot of what you’ve just said has been said before.

 

Quintus

But why are they criminals?

Thank you, thank you, yet another to back up my theories.

So the maiming or killing of a fellow human being, a fellow citizen of the society you live in means very little to you beyond a messed up yard?

Yet again you back up my ideas.

So you read my posts and didn’t realise that you were actually going to make my case stronger?

We all I can say is thanks, you’ve helped me and my theories a great deal.

 

not only no, but i want guns legalized in the UK...

 

Balbus

Please re-read my post. Start another thread for YOUR questions -- I might even suggest a title. Let me know if you need help with that.

I'm happy that we agree: Americans do have the right to own guns and guns are effective an tool for protecting one's health and property and for stopping crime.

Read my post again if you must. Does it say that?

I didn't realize you had a "case" except: one of mindlessly repeating the same information again and again, twisting the meaning of the words of others, and misunderstanding much of what is written. [/QUOTE]

You're quite welcome. I'm happy that you finally understand, if only partially.

 

Quintus
So the maiming or killing of a fellow human being, a fellow citizen of the society you live in means very little to you beyond a messed up yard?

It is a question that is why it has a ‘question mark’ at the end – I’m basically saying is this your meaning because you said -

Which implies that your only worry about killing a fellow human being, another citizen of the society you live in, is a messed up yard or stain on the carpet.
If that wasn’t your meaning what was?

You read all my posts and didn’t realise I was putting forward arguments in support of a claim(s)?

I’d truly wish that people like you didn’t force me to keep repeating myself, as I’ve said if they only actually read my post the first time we might not have that problem.
And you are not going to like a lot of my replies, as you’ve forced me to repeat things.

Can you give me some examples of me doing these things?

Sorry Q but I think that you you’d be better off trying to understand the issues and thinking about them rather than taking this rather sad and juvenile approach.

 

Quintus

My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

This is because that attitude colours the way they think about and view the world from personal interaction to how they see other countries.

They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of criminal or political suppression.

This attitude can lead to a near paranoid outlook were everything and everyone is seen as a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas.

Within the framework of such a worldview guns seem attractive as a means of ‘equalising’ the individual against what they perceive as threats, it makes them feel that they are also ‘powerful’ and intimidating and that they too, if needs be, can deal with, in other words suppress the threatening.

The problem is that such attitudes can build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what they see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible.

 

Quintus
But why are they criminals?

OK the thing is that this is an important subject in any understanding of the US gun issue.

So although I know you are bouncing around like an ADHD suffering Barbary ape on four cups of coffee just wanting to send out another of your witty and oh so insightful one liner’s please try and take a deep breath and think about the subject

You like many other pro-gunners you seem, frightened of crime because according to you -

Now I’ve noticed a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset is reflected in the way many seem to see guns as a solution to the US’s social, economic and political problems, one manifestation being crime.

It also seems to be the reasons for pro-gunners opposition to gun control measures and the belief by many that any type of gun control is an inevitable movement to a full gun ban that needs to be stopped.
The problem I’ve pointed out is that guns cannot tackle the causes of crime they can only ever face the symptoms of the underlying problems (and can only be haphazard at best).

It seems to me that the best way of lessening the fear of so many pro-gunners would be to actually tackling the root causes of crime. If people were less frightened their desire to look to a gun as a crutch is likely to lessen and the prudence of effective gun control measures would become clearer.

 

Can I ask the gun advocates something? why is it acceptable for the US government to stand up for each person, including criminals, possessing guns yet weapons of mass destruction are denied to all but a very few nations? Cos weapons ain't the problem, so let's educate those countries instead. Or conversely, if we recognise inequality of nation states, perhaps the notion of equality of individuals should be demolished? Of course we know the real answer but still, would be good to know.

 

here's a couple issues i think are at the heart of the problems with discussion of 'rights':

1. there are some-they know who they are-who believe that all 'rights' emanate FROM the government. people 'have no rights'; they are 'given' rights by the lordly government. this, i think, goes back to 'the king is the representative of god' (this is also mentioned in the bible, atheists, so...). the belief that a 'ruler', be it a monarch, an oligarch or any other form of 'government' dispenses 'rights' is a form of anachronism to those who live under the Constitution. rights come with birth....which is also part of the abortion argument...(prior to birth is being touted there). as long as someone holds the belief that government dispenses one's rights...there is nothing to discuss. certainly not for me...this is going to be my last post in this thread as a result.

2. why would any of us in the U.S. listen to someone from the UK? they used to have the monetary world standard..and lost it in the 70s because they fell into socialism so hard, they fucked up their economy. they had a world empire...and lost that...in fact, our republic came about because of ill treatment from the UK and their fucking monarch and leaders. they continue to oppress the Irish and Scots...their immigration laws are so lax, they are overrun with radical islamists...and their citizens must store their firearms at the cop shop....but murders still occur in the dreary Brit homeland...they no longer have varmints on farms, i suppose. rook rifles are far in the past except for the elites...holland and holland..how do they stay in business in such a 'civilized' country? i suppose the arabs keep them humming along. god knows, the arabs must own the UK by now.

so why am i discussing firearms with someone who doesn't likely own one, and doesn't have any interest in them, except to feel they are 'not something anyone should have'? i don't know. i suppose i thought to perhaps give some perspective to our Brit brethren...but...it aint gonna happen. i quit. ya can lead a Brit to water, but ya cannot make them give up their allegiance to a damn monarch and 'the kingly dispensation of human rights'. fucking royals...a waste of good air, champagne and water.

walsh, i may not understand what you are asking...as far as the government here standing up for 'gun owners', if you have a felony on your record, you are barred from having a firearm and voting, i think. it is possible to get that erased, but one must have substantial evidence to the extent that the conviction could be overturned. our government is not standing up for those of us who do not have felony convictions..who can legally own firearms. they are, every day, making small moves to try to limit firearm ownership, while, at the same time, not doing a damn thing about violent criminals..lock 'em up, let 'em out. it's a revolving door at the prison for all but the very worst, most publicized offenders. some states do not allow one to defend themself in their own home unless they have no way to escape out the back; some states restrict the rights to own firearms in many ways...our government is NOT standing up for the law abiding citizen...it wants us to follow like sheep, and lay down our weapons. the lion is going to lie down with the lamb, you see. sure it is...chomp.

as far as weapons of mass destruction...saying iran has no right to have an atomic bomb is hypocrisy. they have the same right to try to destroy us all as any other government. it's simply 'posturing' by bullies to say one must not...the other can. goes back to 'who has rights?'...those who can retain them..at sword point if need be. those who do not believe they have inborn rights will never have any atall.

 

walsh asks:
"why is it acceptable for the US government to stand up for each person, including criminals, possessing guns?"

Answer: It does not.

walsh asks:
"if we recognise inequality of nation states, perhaps the notion of equality of individuals should be demolished?"

Answer: Do we not recognize the inequalities of nation states? and individuals are in no way equal in every way to one another. Is that bad?

walsh states:
"Of course we know the real answer..."

Question remains:
Do we really? More likely there is no one acceptable answer to that or any question asked simply because we remain individuals first and use government as a force to impose a single answer upon all without need for individual acceptance.

It is not democracy that produces freedom and we should be intent on spreading, but simply freedom. Democracy is the means by which our freedoms are eroded. The U.S. created a Constitution which when adhered to properly, protects the rights of minorities as well as those of majorities. Democracy allows the majority, whether it be a majority of the population, or just a majority of elected representatives from infringing upon the rights of individuals. Chnages to the Constitution come about not by the acceptance of a simple majority, but only that of a super majority of three fourths.

 

Individuals have formal equality, don't they? Equal rights, duties?

Interesting, but it doesn't quite answer the question. I was interested in whether the same justification for individuals owning guns used in this thread could be applied to individual nations.

 

I agree that rights are held by those who can retain them, which means rights are given and not inherent. Your two statements seem to contradict, as you seem to suggest natural rights in your last sentence.

 

Depending upon what you are referring to as equal rights and the means of their achievement.
Equal duties? This too, without elaboration, is too vague.
While the Declaration of Independence claims Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness to be among the unalienable rights of all men, it in no way is meant to be interpreted as a guarantee of their achievement as a result of government intervention.

Sounds like a question that should be asked in a new thread.

 

Of course. The law does not regard individuals as equal, but they are treated equally under the law. So each individual has the same rights and duties, a duty being the opposite of a right. If I have a right towards you (eg. minimum wage) you have a duty to provide me with minimum wage. Now I've forgotten what we were talking about. Maybe a new thread is a good idea.

 

we've made. on a global scale, the taking of human life an effortless pursuit, why ????
if u dont see the absurdity in that concept then ????
are human beings that despicable???
U GODDAMN RIGHT